With Brendan Carr set to take over the reins at the FCC, the regulator is expected to roll back red tape and prioritise global spectrum leadership. While we expect sweeping changes in consumer protection and net neutrality, Carr’s influence on broadband funding and tech regulation will be more limited.
Commissioner Carr’s agenda for a conservative-led FCC will be subject to a series of limitations at the outset of the Trump Administration. It’s unclear what the full impact of the rollback of the Chevron Doctrine and the general deference it gave to regulators’ rules will mean for the FCC.
The protection of net neutrality will end with the rolling back of Title II classifications for broadband internet under the Communications Act. While little changed in practice when the first Trump-appointed FCC rolled back regulation, 5G and the growing interest in specialised services such as network slicing things could be different this time.
A longtime advocate of the US’s need to be a global leader, Carr will look to maximise the quantity of spectrum being awarded. As a vocal supporter of satellite-based services, Carr is a friendly face for SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper.
The US is likely to recede quickly from its recent position as a leader in consumer protection measures. Carr is likely to repeal rules that define and outlaw discriminatory business practices in telecoms and abandon plans that would’ve seen the use of data caps in consumer contracts outlawed.
Federal funding for broadband rollout is likely to remain intact, but the process of allocating funds may come under fire. Congress is expected to pursue concerns over potential rate regulation in the allocation of funds of the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment Program.
Carr’s remit over tech policy will be limited, however he is expected to push for a ‘fair share’ from platforms in the form of a contribution to the Universal Service Fund. However the fund’s future is uncertain given it is currently subject to a legal challenge over its constitutionality.
Brendan Carr will take over the FCC with significant (but caveated) power to rewrite regulation
With the transition between the Biden Administration and second Trump Administration nearly complete, the US’ approach to regulating tech and telecoms is expected to shift. Following the announcement of Brendan Carr as the next chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), we expect some immediate changes in how the regulator approaches its work across a range of policy areas, including net neutrality, spectrum and consumer protection. Given Carr’s current role as an FCC commissioner and his regular commentary on his vision for a conservative-led regulator through the 2024 election, his plans for his term as chair are fairly well known and defined.
However, though the FCC has extensive authority to write (and rewrite) telecoms regulation independently, Carr’s powers will be subject to a number of caveats while still benefiting from a Republican-controlled Congress. Before Carr can begin acting on his agenda, the US Senate will need to confirm a fifth Commissioner to fill a vacancy left by outgoing Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, which will create a conservative majority. Substantial changes to some recent FCC programmes, including consumer broadband labels, are backed by legislation, so Congress would also be required to pass an amendment in order to rollback those rules in their entirety.
Some of Carr’s aspirations will be limited by the jurisdiction of the FCC and new limitations on the regulator’s power. Though Carr has frequently expressed his desire to “rein in big tech,” the US lacks a comprehensive legislative framework to regulate platforms on a number of fronts. He instead proposes that the regulator broadly reinterpret its powers under Section 230 of the Communications Act, which provides a liability shield for platforms that act as intermediaries for user-generated content. This proposal is legally tenuous and faces the further challenge of the recent rollback of the Chevron Doctrine by the Supreme Court. The doctrine stated that regulators have an expertise that makes them best situated to interpret and apply ambiguous laws through rulemaking, such as by defining what a telecommunications service means in relation to net neutrality. With the Chevron Doctrine struck down and other similar challenges pending to the independent powers of regulators to make rules, it appears unlikely that the FCC will get the benefit of significant deference in making sweeping new rules, in relation to big tech or in any other policy area.
Rules protecting net neutrality will be rescinded again under the Trump administration
Of the varying policy areas we expect a Carr-led FCC to pursue changes in, we are most confident that net neutrality regulations will once again be rescinded by the regulator. Under President Trump’s last administration, net neutrality regulations were rescinded by the FCC while Ajit Pai was the Commission’s chair. Although it is expected that these regulations will once again be rescinded, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has already rejected the reinstatement of these rules as of January 2025. The Court found that broadband ISPs were better suited to the definition of ‘information services’ rather than ‘telecommunication services’ as they would have been classified under with net neutrality regulations in place. This case is understood as one of the first applications of the new precedent set in the repeal of the Chevron Doctrine, which, as discussed, now limits the deference that regulators get when making rules as experts on various policy matters. The outgoing FCC Chair, Jessica Rosenworcel has called upon Congress to implement net neutrality into federal law in response to the court’s decision. It seems unlikely that Congress would pursue such a policy with Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Title II style “net neutrality” rules have always been the wolf in sheep’s clothing - an innocent sounding branding that masks the government's attempt to gain greater control over the internet.
Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner (X, 1 August 2024)
Despite these sweeping and repeated changes, we are not aware of any substantial changes to consumer experiences in the market. It does not appear that the principles of net neutrality subsided substantially when protections were rolled back during the first Trump Administration. However, with the new court decision, a lack of clarity on the treatment of specialised services such as network slicing appears likely, meaning greater challenges could be ahead for operators and the regulator in maintaining a stable regulatory environment to continue to encourage the rollout of 5G networks. It appears that some of the practices that would likely have been limited or restricted under net neutrality rules are now coming to the fore just as those rules will be rescinded, potentially negatively impacting consumers and giving more freedom to ISPs to treat important internet data unequally.
Carr will be aggressive in making more spectrum available for auction
Carr’s plans for spectrum policy in the upcoming administration are likely to be a key agenda item for the new chair, although they will require congressional action. As of March 2023, the FCC lost its legal authority to auction spectrum, and Congress has consistently failed to pass legislation to reapprove these powers. This stalemate, due in part to disagreements over the Biden Administration’s National Spectrum Strategy, is likely to quickly resolve with a new chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Ted Cruz, who has been one of the primary critics. He is likely to reintroduce and lead the passage of a reintroduced version of his Spectrum Pipeline Act, which required the FCC to auction at least 1,375MHz of spectrum within six years, including 600MHz that must be auctioned within three years.
Carr has repeatedly emphasised his priority on securing the US’ global leadership in wireless, especially in comparison to China, and is well-aligned with Cruz’s ambition to quickly auction a high quantity of spectrum to support those aims. In the past, Carr highlighted the lower 3GHz band, 4.8GHz band, 7.125-8.4GHz band, spectrum above 95 GHz and other millimeter wave frequencies including the 42GHz band as prime candidates for future auctions. He has also been an advocate of a greater FCC focus on spectrum for satellite services. In his Project 2025 chapter, he argued that the FCC needed to eliminate “heavy-handed" regulations to create a more “market-friendly” regulatory environment for satellite providers such as SpaceX through Starlink and Amazon through Project Kuiper. Elon Musk’s SpaceX was only recently granted conditional approval by the FCC to use its Starlink systems for direct-to-device service. With Musk’s position in the incoming administration, the next FCC is expected to be more open to the interests of SpaceX and their pursuit of more satellite spectrum. Under his leadership, the FCC is likely to regain unchallenged leadership on the US’ spectrum policy, and the role of the NTIA in spectrum management, which grew significantly during the Biden Administration, is likely to recede.
The US’ (brief) world leadership on consumer protection issues will quickly end
Throughout the four years of the Biden Administration, the FCC pieced together a world-leading consumer protection regime for the telecoms sector. Despite the regulator’s continued refusal to engage in rate regulation, or regulation on the pricing of services, the FCC has proposed and implemented a series of measures aimed at expanding access to and improving the affordability and transparency of broadband offerings. Some of these measures passed on strictly partisan votes or are pending but understood to be partisan matters, including: rules banning discriminatory business practices (such as limiting network investment in poorer communities or communities of color), rules on the use of data limits in fixed and mobile tariffs and rules on bulk-billing in and access to multi-dwelling units. Perhaps unsurprisingly given his preference for less regulatory intervention, Commissioner Carr is likely to roll back a number of these regulations, particularly those he voted against (including digital discrimination rules and all-in pricing rules for video services).
A few of the measures passed by the FCC during the Biden Administration were introduced through legislation passed by Congress and would require a legislative amendment to be rolled back in their entirety. Commissioner Carr did vote in favor of adopting one of these measures, the rules on consumer broadband labeling, but small changes to how these labels are presented, including in what languages and formats, would not be surprising. Carr is unlikely to prioritise any further consumer protection measures, and the US is likely to return to its place as a less heavily regulated retail market compared to other jurisdictions such as the EU or UK.
Federal broadband investment is likely to come under fire over allegations of rate regulation
There will be an important discussion about the [BEAD] program’s future, given the lion’s share of the money has not been spent.
Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner (X, 22 November 2024)
The Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, established by President Biden’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, committed a considerable $42.45bn (£32bn) to improving broadband connectivity in unserved and underserved areas. The future of the landmark programme is now somewhat unclear. Congress passed the BEAD program initially, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), not the FCC, is responsible for administering the programme. The power to make substantive changes does not sit within Carr’s jurisdiction despite him being such an outspoken critic. In Congress, there is generally bipartisan support for improving connectivity in rural areas, so to actively work against the deployment of this funding seems counterintuitive, and therefore unlikely. When Carr becomes FCC chair, a portion of the programme’s funding will already be underway. Despite his plans for an “important discussion” on BEAD, it is unlikely that his FCC will be able to make major changes to the programme’s funding.
A number of Republicans in Congress have voiced concerns about the programme though — particularly Senator Cruz, who recently wrote to the NTIA, urging it to halt “unlawful” activities related to BEAD. Cruz warned that, in 2025, Congress would review the programme and would pay specific attention to “the imposition of statutorily prohibited rate regulation” and the “NTIA’s extreme technology bias in defining ‘priority broadband projects’”. GOP members have accused the NTIA of rate regulation given their current requirements on ISPs to provide affordable broadband in return for receiving BEAD funding — so these obligations for ISPs could be dropped. Cruz’s complaint of a technology bias stems from the NTIA’s stated preference for allocating funding to fibre initiatives rather than other technologies such as satellite or fixed wireless access. With the influence of Elon Musk in the incoming administration a likely factor, the Trump Administration could look to redirect some of the programme’s funding towards satellite services.
Carr is hoping to rein in big tech by enforcing contributions from large platforms into the Universal Service Fund
One issue that is likely to see more attention under a Carr-led FCC is Europe’s fair share debate. Over the past few years, a bipartisan group of US Senators have argued that big tech platforms should have to pay their ‘fair share’ into the Universal Service Fund (USF) alongside telecom providers as it is their federally supported networks that enable big tech platforms to provide their services to consumers. In a Project 2025 (a political initiative laying out conservative priorities for a second Trump presidency) chapter, Carr wrote that big tech needed to be reined in and that Congress should require big tech companies to contribute a fair amount to the USF. Though the FCC administers the programme, Congress would be required to pass a law to alter the contribution base of the fund.
There is also wider, general uncertainty about the USF due to a legal challenge from conservative activist groups. In November 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case as to whether the USF is unconstitutional following the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision that it is. Consumers’ Research and other conservative activist organisations argue that the USF’s funding and distribution structure violates limits on Congress from delegating its core legislative powers to agencies or private entities, which includes the power to collect what they argue is a tax for the USF. The court will decide on two main issues — the constitutionality of the FCC’s authorisation to decide the amounts that providers must contribute to the USF and the constitutionality of the FCC’s delegation of the USF’s administration to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a private nonprofit. Outgoing Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has said that she is “hopeful that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision that puts this vital system at risk”. A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2025. Carr has urged caution when discussing future expansions of the USF’s funding because of the current “torpedoes in the water” against the fund. He believes that these need to be addressed and has called for Congress to review the different components of the USF with the aim of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency and saving taxpayer money.
